12 October 11

Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations

66th General Assembly – Sixth Committee Item 84:

The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction

New York, 12 October 2011

Mr. Chairman,

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is grateful to the Secretary-General for his
report on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction
(A/66/93).

The report, in connection with the 2010 report (A/65/181) on the subject,
provides a useful overview of comments by Governments on their general
application and understanding of the subject. In this respect, in the view of
the Netherlands, universal jurisdiction is an important tool in the fight
against impunity for the most serious crimes under international law.
Furthermore, universal jurisdiction contributes to implementing the principle of
complementarity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

In addition to providing information on domestic legal rules, applicable
international treaties, and judicial practice, the reports of the
Secretary-General furthermore provide a synopsis of issues raised by Governments
for possible discussion. In this respect, the Netherlands could consider a
continued process to study such issues. This, however, should be foremost an
international law study of the topic, both in terms of substance and in terms of
procedure.

The Netherlands would like to reiterate its position as stated previously.
As to substance, as suggested in the Secretary-General’s reports, while the
issues for further research would need to be clarified further, they could
include the following: whether the presence of an accused in the State
exercising universal jurisdiction is required (as is the case under the Dutch
International Crimes Act); and the relationship between universal jurisdiction
and other bases of jurisdiction, including territoriality. At the same time,
however, in the view of the Netherlands, international law and existing dispute
settlement mechanisms adequately allow for the resolution of any disputes in
connection with the exercise of universal jurisdiction. We, therefore, do not
see merit in the proposed establishment of a new international regulatory body
to that end.

As to procedure, the Netherlands would consider that this legal topic ought
to be discussed in a legal context in preparation for a future consideration in
this forum. A discussion that would not be based on a full and proper
understanding could have a negative impact on the important tool universal
jurisdiction can be in the fight against impunity. It could be discussed
whether, as suggested in the Secretary-General’s reports, it would be useful to
request the International Law Commission to consider this topic further. In such
a case, we would propose to reflect further on how to specify the request to the
Commission and the framework for its work. An advantage may be that the
Commission could conduct this work in conjunction with related topics under its
consideration, such as “Obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut
judicare)” and “Immunity of State officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction”.
We would also note that work on universal jurisdiction should take into
consideration the work with respect to this topic already carried out by others,
including the very relevant AU-EU Technical Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Principle
of Universal Jurisdiction.